[OT] Cr*ppy Belgium

[Greybeard]

I continue to be amazed at how many people don't understand that Iraq has violated the conditions of the cease fire from the previous "conflict." By violating these conditions, they have negated the cease fire. No additional action is necessary to continue the conflict. The "coalition force," or the United States does not need any additional approvals to finish the job.

The inspectors are not in Iraq to find Saddam's weapons, although you wouldn't know it from listening to Hanz Blix. The Iraqis are supposed to be showing the inspectors proof that they have destroyed or eliminated all of the biological, etc. weapons that they had at the end of the Gulf War. To date, Iraq has not cooperated and has not provided proof as required.

Saddam is playing a cat and mouse game and using disagreements between other nations to buy time. As GB said, the game is over.

The United Nations is as ineffective as the League of Nations was. For it to dissolve into nothing would be a great improvement. If you don't believe this, go to the UN web page and read some of the reports that their committees have prepared. These committees want to take away the sovereignty of all of the world's nations.

As for Europe, it's about time for them to defend themselves. Bring our troops home after this war and let Europe do what they wish without our support...Greybeard

[minipol]

Originally posted by Greybeard:
As for Europe, it's about time for them to defend themselves. Bring our troops home after this war and let Europe do what they wish without our support...Greybeard

I wonder how Europe would ever be able to defend itself. Europe has a history of struggles and wars and even to this day, as clearly shown the Last couple of days, they quarrel amongst themselves.
I really really wonder how this could be an effective force.
It's not IMO. More action, less talk. Debating is fine but when somebody slaps you in the face, you slap back and preferably a bit harder so they get the message (that's my way of doing things)
Reminds me of when i turned 12 and went to high school. For some reason, the kids of one class started pestering me. Talking to them or teachers
intervening didn't help. Then i punched one of them so hard in the face, a tooth flew out of his mouth. Case closed. Now when i was walking in the hall way, kids made room for me.
Of course that's not really a comparison and not meant to be, just a thought.

Anyway, i still find it hard that so many countries have trouble giving Saddam an ultimatum or whatever to really bring him down. Although i don't think an ultimatum would help.

[God Emperor]

The whole problem about the Iraq affair is that the world community knows that the planned US invasion (Bush has intended to invade from day 1, have no doubt about that) is not being done solely because of altruistic reasons. Control of oil supplies and the middle-east and the USA's need to dominate the world (to support its economy) is a significant factor.

The above statement is not intended to pooh-pooh the fact that the strength of the USA over the Last 80 years has made it possible for western democracy to flourish. Its just to make the point that US policy is directed at ensuring the best outcomes for the US people, even if it is to the detriment of others (no different really from what other countries try to do).
The difference of course though is that the US is the only super-power, spends more on its military budget than the rest of the world combined, and maintains battle fleets in five of the worlds major oceans. With the USSR gone, the negative aspects of US foreign policy are more likely to become a source of friction between the US and its allies.
Comments by hardliners such as Rumsfeld (old Europe) and by Bush I think have exacerbated the differences - "if you are not with us, you are against us". Although the statement was referring to the War on Terror, it is clearly the approach that the current US administration takes to all of its dealings with other countries and just reinforces the message that the US "empire" will not tolerate dissenters.
I find it quite concerning actually that anyone the US disagrees with is automatically considered to be wrong, negative, etc.....

Just hope you Americans can keep your politicians under control and maintain your democracy and freedoms in the form that your founding fathers had in mind.
Regards,
GE

(the perspective of an Australian who doesnt like the way his Prime Minister says "how high" when Bush says "jump").....

[Captain Kwok]

If I have to hear the the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' one more time...

Here is a letter that I read in a recent Toronto Star newpaper opinion page that I thought hit the hammer on the head about those weapons...

Dubious Weapons of Mass Destruction

Feb. 6.

In would appear that there are three classifications of weapons of mass destruction: atomic, biological and gas. According to U.N. inspectors, there appears to be virtually no evidence that Iraq has constructed atomic weapons. As biological weapons go, the one most often mentioned is anthrax. But, unless some truly inspired work has been done with this agent, I have a lot of difficulty including it as a problem.

In his recent U.N. presentation, Colin Powell suggested that anthrax was a particularly deadly thing, that a teaspoonful shut down most of the Senate for a long period of time, and that two people died. While I do have sympathy for the survivors of those lost, two people do not make up a very great mass. What shut down the Senate was paranoia, not anthrax. Study of the history of recent infections suggests that it is extremely hard to develop an effective vector and that, to date, nothing has been developed that allows one to conclude that anthrax has any truly "mass" capability.

In regard to gas of whatever type, an understanding of the history of its deployment during warfare suggests that it is an extremely difficult weapon to use. Its use is complicated by wind patterns, geography and counteractive agents. As we discovered during World War I, it often blew back over the very people deploying it, rendering its use extremely questionable. It is also difficult to deliver any real quantity any real distance. A warhead filled with it might, if precisely aimed, kill a few dozen, or perhaps a few hundred, but again, classifying it as even a distant relative to the H-bomb is highly questionable. While Saddam Hussein may have even a large quantity, he has no effective means of delivery.

Given this discussion, the American rush to war seems even more questionable. I listened to Powell's presentation, hoping to hear a proper military briefing, complete with a description of weapons, weapons capability, weapons quantity and estimates of potential casualties if those weapons were deployed. I heard none of this. What I did hear was sound bite propaganda. And nothing that could not be verified by on-the-ground inspection.

How many people could the Iraqis possibly kill? How many would die if the Iraqis were attacked? Given the weapons available to each side, it seems that the Iraqis are in far more danger than we are.

The major worry seems to be that Saddam might follow a scorched earth policy. If this is truly what American officials believe, how can they still present the case that any really effective weapons of mass potential are still in Saddam's hands?

Hmm.

[primitive]

First of all, a statement.
- I am no friend of Saddam.
- I do belive there are some weapons of mass destruction stashed away.
- I do belive Saddam is doing everything in his power to keep these hidden.
- I do recognize this violates the cease-fire, and US have the mandate to go to war.

Yet I strongly oppose the war.

Why ?
It won't solve any problems, just move them to another location. The third worlds resentment agaist what they perceive as US/Western oppresion and aggression will increase even faster, and new terrorist bases will pop up somewhere else. It's far better to have one weak enemy you know and can control, then to have enemies you don't know.
And Weapens of mass destruction can be made with a chemistry-set in a basement. It's transporting them to the place they will be used that is the problem.

Greybeard:
American troops in Europe was needed (and greatly appreciated) until the fall of the Soviet Union. After that they are just a waste of tax-payers money. I really don't mind, because its not my taxes. But it makes me wonder if the real reason for the war is to justify the huge US defence budget.

Damien and God Emperor:
You are a wise (and well informed) men.

Puke:
There is much wisdom in your post, but I think You give the "people in charge" to much cred if you think they actually understand whats going on.

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by primitive:
It won't solve any problems, just move them to another location. The third worlds resentment agaist what they perceive as US/Western oppresion and aggression will increase even faster, and new terrorist bases will pop up somewhere else. It's far better to have one weak enemy you know and can control, then to have enemies you don't know.

No, the climate of hatred against the US already exists. Removing Saddam doesn't create a new problem somewhere else. Not removing Saddam doesn't prevent hatred against the US.

The world, in general, doesn't get its perspective of Americans from its foreign policy. In fact, according to a very recently released study, most non-Americans got their information about America from Hollywood. Those who knew Americans personally were less likely to hold negative views of the US than those who did not.

Militant Muslims call America the "Great Satan." This isn't because of our foreign policy; it's because of our culture, or at least their perception of it. They see us as a sexually promiscuous, greedy, irreverant, blasphemous people who stand in direct defiance to Islamic law. As such, in their minds, we must be destroyed and made subject to their laws.

How ironic that Hollywood is so strongly for talking about and "understanding" the view of these fanatics, when they would be the first people to go should the fanatics get their way.

[couslee]

now they are getting us back. oh, the US is too good for our military alliance? guess what? we dont need to play with you either. thats what they're telling us. and they have every right to.
and
both sides are picking members like schook kids getting ready for a ballgame.
and
Reminds me of when i turned 12 and went to high school. ( 12yr old HS student?)
anThen i punched one of them so hard in the face, a tooth flew out of his mouth. Case closed.

I certainly hope they have a better reason than the childish reason of "they told us no thanks" for failing to provide defensive measures for Turkey. If 12 yr old HS students are running the country, then perhaps whay they need is a good punch in the mouth. That is one sorry excuse to block NATO.

If I need $500, and 8 people say here is $100. Should the three people I say "no thanks, the need is met" too get offended because I didn't take "THEIR" $100? And in their anger go take it out on a third person who is in need?

I certainly hope that is not the situation. If it is..... They need to (expletive) grow up.

Besides, Iraq has already threatened many times to attack Turkey, and anyone else who aids the USA during wartime events. The threat is real, the lack of Turkish defensive aid is stupid.

And the excuse that it might be seen as a sign that talks have failed is just as lame. Perhaps everyone should wait until Saddam attacks them before making a move, because it might not be "politically correct". Iraq is a neighboring country to Turkey. It's easy to point a nay finger when your several nations away from the threat.